|
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
(Post 1343215)
I fully understand the CAL pilot's fear of the use of longevity in any SLI. I understand why most of you cling to one position, relative seniority. I would like to think that most, if not all of the UAL pilots understand. The UAL pilots witnessed the DOH chants during the 2000 USAir merger attempt.
I'm not asking you to agree ;), but from the responses I have read on the CAL side, some don't make an attempt to understand. We are not going to get everything we want, but at least understanding the other side might take some of the sting out of the sli award. It would be even sweeter if that pilot group median age was 5 or 6 years older as well. |
Originally Posted by NFLUALNFL
(Post 1338554)
I'm really stuck on the "emotional impact" comment. These missives are almost always written for a larger audience and/or rife with hidden meaning and inferences; but really? "Emotional impact" specific to any one domicile (made up of adults by the way). Other L-UAL domiciles have 737s and L-CAL domiciles have 320s. Pilots in SFO can probably handle this.
The fact still remains that the junior 737 Capt in ORD has a seniority date that would have gotten him furloughed at L-UAL. Emotional impact indeed-deal with the whole group Jay. |
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
(Post 1343299)
I'd want relative seniority as well if UAL was merging with and airline that was only 20% larger in size, but had 250 widebody aircraft. I'd be the same relative seniority but at an airline with far more widebody aircraft to fly.
It would be even sweeter if that pilot group median age was 5 or 6 years older as well. Isn't the average age of the pilot group at UAL 51? |
Originally Posted by EWR73FO
(Post 1343330)
Isn't the average age of the pilot group at UAL 51?
Ensure - CHECK Propecia - CHECK "Blue Pill" - CHECK <Facetiously drapped with Sarcasm> |
You forgot cheaters, depends and metamucil.
|
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
(Post 1343215)
I fully understand the CAL pilot's fear of the use of longevity in any SLI. I understand why most of you cling to one position, relative seniority. I would like to think that most, if not all of the UAL pilots understand. The UAL pilots witnessed the DOH chants during the 2000 USAir merger attempt.
I'm not asking you to agree ;), but from the responses I have read on the CAL side, some don't make an attempt to understand. We are not going to get everything we want, but at least understanding the other side might take some of the sting out of the sli award. My only this suck issue is that I am closing in on about 50% BES with this next bid, getting use to a good schedule and most likely I will be going back on reserve, it better be better then the last 2 times. |
Originally Posted by beeker
(Post 1343385)
Relative seniority, longevity, age and whatever other formula won't make much of a difference for me. Unless we throw in some wild card factors like time to run a 5k or final position in a Madden tournament.
|
Originally Posted by thor2j
(Post 1343055)
Its called age discrimination. Works both ways young and old. Can't discriminate against someone because they are younger.
|
Originally Posted by Pilotbiffster
(Post 1343397)
ALPA explained that the younger pilots had time to "get well" in the remaining years.
|
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1343418)
That answer has been used for a lot of things. B scales, A fund, reserve rules, to name a few. Fortunately they then saw fit to give us yet another five years to get well.
Problem is, you give an inch, they take a mile. How many guys coming up on age 65 now want age 67 or 70 or no age limit at all? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:11 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands